From: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
To: yangge1116@126.com
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 21cnbao@gmail.com,
david@redhat.com, baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com,
aisheng.dong@nxp.com, liuzixing@hygon.cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] mm/cma: using per-CMA locks to improve concurrent allocation performance
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 10:15:07 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z6nDmznSoFNDlsvU@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1739152566-744-1-git-send-email-yangge1116@126.com>
On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 09:56:06AM +0800, yangge1116@126.com wrote:
> From: yangge <yangge1116@126.com>
>
> For different CMAs, concurrent allocation of CMA memory ideally should not
> require synchronization using locks. Currently, a global cma_mutex lock is
> employed to synchronize all CMA allocations, which can impact the
> performance of concurrent allocations across different CMAs.
>
> To test the performance impact, follow these steps:
> 1. Boot the kernel with the command line argument hugetlb_cma=30G to
> allocate a 30GB CMA area specifically for huge page allocations. (note:
> on my machine, which has 3 nodes, each node is initialized with 10G of
> CMA)
> 2. Use the dd command with parameters if=/dev/zero of=/dev/shm/file bs=1G
> count=30 to fully utilize the CMA area by writing zeroes to a file in
> /dev/shm.
> 3. Open three terminals and execute the following commands simultaneously:
> (Note: Each of these commands attempts to allocate 10GB [2621440 * 4KB
> pages] of CMA memory.)
> On Terminal 1: time echo 2621440 > /sys/kernel/debug/cma/hugetlb1/alloc
> On Terminal 2: time echo 2621440 > /sys/kernel/debug/cma/hugetlb2/alloc
> On Terminal 3: time echo 2621440 > /sys/kernel/debug/cma/hugetlb3/alloc
>
> We attempt to allocate pages through the CMA debug interface and use the
> time command to measure the duration of each allocation.
> Performance comparison:
> Without this patch With this patch
> Terminal1 ~7s ~7s
> Terminal2 ~14s ~8s
> Terminal3 ~21s ~7s
>
> To slove problem above, we could use per-CMA locks to improve concurrent
> allocation performance. This would allow each CMA to be managed
> independently, reducing the need for a global lock and thus improving
> scalability and performance.
>
> Signed-off-by: yangge <yangge1116@126.com>
Reviewed-by: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
--
Oscar Salvador
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-02-10 9:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-02-10 1:56 yangge1116
2025-02-10 3:44 ` Barry Song
2025-02-10 8:34 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-02-10 8:56 ` Ge Yang
2025-02-10 9:15 ` Oscar Salvador [this message]
2025-03-18 3:43 ` Andrew Morton
2025-03-18 7:21 ` Ge Yang
2025-03-18 13:02 ` David Hildenbrand
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Z6nDmznSoFNDlsvU@localhost.localdomain \
--to=osalvador@suse.de \
--cc=21cnbao@gmail.com \
--cc=aisheng.dong@nxp.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=liuzixing@hygon.cn \
--cc=yangge1116@126.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox